The concept and phenomenon of the border is fruitfully studied by many natural and humanitarian sciences: physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, history, psychology, cultural studies, ethnology, geography. In a general sense, a boundary is considered as an area (line, point, area, zone) of transition between environments and / or spaces with qualitatively and quantitatively different properties and parameters. Along with the border itself (civilizational and cultural 1 , historical 2 , political 3 , economic 4 , geographical 5 - this division is somewhat conditional), we also study the images of the border (borders) that appear and dominate in certain territories in certain epochs, within the framework of local civilizations. Such images are formed on the basis of the target ideas (social groups, politicians, administrators, scientists, etc.) represented in one way or another about the functions, place, and role of borders in the life of societies. Images of borders can be considered as parts, components of the corresponding mentalities and / or mental spaces 6 .

The object of research here is historical and geographical images of borders. Like any complex object, they synthesize and combine the qualities inherent in their constituent elements - taken separately, historical or geographical boundaries. This is a complex "fusion" that takes into account and uses the dynamic features of spatial and temporal development as much as possible. The relevance of studying such objects is indisputable, since the solution of many modern international and domestic problems (resolving interethnic and inter-confessional conflicts, drawing political borders, identifying social and country - regional hierarchies, building large economic objects, etc.) directly depends on the procedures for identifying target representations of certain territories over a wide time range.

1. THE BORDER AS A HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGE

Historical and geographical images of borders represent structurally a special space-time, in which both temporal and spatial parameters are firmly merged in the corresponding signs and symbols. From the point of view of the general classification of geographical spaces, we can talk about a whole class of border spaces, or boundary spaces. Classic examples of this kind are: - the American frontier 7, Ukraine as a border country (Big Border) 8, countries-civilizational limitrophs 9, countries - geopolitical "buffers" , etc. In these cases, many historical events within the marked territories are perceived through the" prism " of geohistory, or historical geography .10 Border Images

page 43

The most interesting types of historical and geographical images for studying are the ones that can be observed here: both figurative (a jump in the image enhancement due to the "spike" of temporal and spatial markers) and real (a space considered as a border automatically acquires a number of specific parameters, which can be used as a border). contributing to a more vivid and effective perception of this territory).

The image of borders in general form has special typological characteristics. The most important among them are its instability, "fluidity" associated with the curvature of the real historical and geographical space. [Note that historical and geographical space, in contrast to geographical space, is structured mainly due to clear spatial localization, representations and interpretations of relevant historical events that occur (occurred) in a certain geographical area (region). In fact, understanding and / or creating an image of borders means experimenting with space, when it quickly "expands" through imaginative animation - various cultural, political, socio-economic, and social events simultaneously coexist in it, which seem to converge into a historical and geographical point, while simultaneously expanding the space of the border image itself. This concentration of events (sometimes multi-temporal and multi-spatial from the point of view of traditional historical geography) makes it possible to consider entire series of border images that directly capture the dynamics and mobility of real borders. Their reform is associated with clashes, struggles, and the interaction of different images - regions, countries, and peoples. Therefore, they can be a complex conglomerate of heterogeneous images, and a number of these images can be transferred from quite remote and other historical and geographical spaces. Here there is a convergence and imaginative interaction of countries and regions that are quite remote in traditional geographical terms. The process of forming images of borders is characterized in general as the interpenetration, interweaving, and clustering of various symbols, signs, and ideas of the border, which ultimately mark a specific image space historically and geographically .11 In a certain sense, the image of the border is a kind of "amalgam" that maximally pulls together the most distant spaces from each other .12

Images of borders seem to stretch the real space and at the same time attract and concentrate different historical epochs. Various transitional phenomena (political, cultural, socio-economic) that are difficult to detect within certain territories and historical times can be effectively studied, as if through a "magnifying glass", with the help of these images. In a certain sense, they can also be called mental-geographical boundaries that "thicken" the space-time continuum of key mental spaces.

2. REPRESENTATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGES OF BORDERS *

Representations of historical and geographical images of borders are associated both with the direct identification of border territories, the borders themselves, and with the identification of special, specific border symbols and signs that historically and geographically correspond to certain borders and border spaces. Symbols such as prairie, cowboy, and Native American serve as obvious symbols of the North American Frontier and the Far West of the United States. For Siberia of the XVI-XVIII centuries.

* Representation of an image in our understanding is the representation of an image at the verbal and / or non-verbal levels using combinations or systems of key symbols and signs that are adequate to its content. The most important of these symbolic-sign systems are visual and textual (they may overlap in part). In a general sense, image representation means procedures for finding and identifying direct correspondences between an image and certain symbols and signs.

page 44

quite obvious border symbols are the Cossack, the explorer, the taiga, the prison, the yasak, etc. 13 . Representations of images of political borders are associated with a special symbolism that characterizes the dynamics of barrier and contact between these borders 14 . For example, a border barrier can be represented by the symbols of barbed wire and border towers (for example, the border between the Warsaw Pact countries and Western Europe in the 1950s and 1980s), and explicit contact and permeability can be expressed by a civil document that guarantees free movement in territories with permeable political borders (for example, a passport of a citizen of one of the Schengen countries).

Interpretation of historical and geographical images of borders * * means, first of all, the study of their dynamics and structural changes in the mental and geographical space of borders. Changes in the contours of real borders, their causes and consequences are directly related to modifications of border images. However, in the process of imaginative interpretation, additional contexts arise - civilizational , cultural, and regional-that allow us to more fully and deeply comprehend such changes. The most important aspect is the modification of the symbols and border signs themselves and their structures16 . To some extent, such modifications can also occur outside of direct dependence on changes in real boundaries, under the influence of indirect or hidden factors. Interpretation of images of borders, expanding the contexts of consideration, allows us to capture the impact of these factors and discover patterns of autonomous functioning of mental-geographical spaces of borders.

There are three main ways to expand the review contexts.

The first method is to use a fairly stable image of a certain border when interpreting images of borders in other civilizational regions. For example, attempts to interpret the southern borders of the medieval Christian states of the Iberian Peninsula during the Reconquista, the southern and eastern borders of Russia in the XVI-XIX centuries, 17 the northern and northwestern borders of China in the III century BC - XVIII century AD, and other regions of the world (Latin America, Australia, Africa) as frontiers18 mean a fundamental expansion of research contexts and a clear increase in the content of the mental and geographical space of these borders. The disadvantage of this method is a certain coarsening of the contours and "relief" of the resulting mental-geographical space.

The second way to expand contexts is to represent a specific border of a certain type (political, economic, cultural) like a different type of border. So, a political border can be represented as an economic or civilizational border, a cultural border as a political one, and so on. At the same time, there is an almost automatic increase in the possibilities of interpreting border images, since one image-symbolic series (the image of a political border) is "enriched" by another (for example, a cultural border). Naturally, then there is a formal and logical cutting off of the introduced symbols and signs that are not applicable in the course of subsequent interpretation. A possible disadvantage of this method is the danger of replacing one image of the border with another, completely replacing one image-symbolic row with another that does not correspond to the initial tasks of interpretation.

* * Interpretation here is the process of choosing a position, point of view, and orientation of analysis in relation to already represented images. Further, it is assumed that in the process of interpretation, its autonomous space is created, in which the mental "distances" between images are determined and the "relief" of the image system is formed. The result of this interpretation is a special meta-space that includes interpreted images and key relationships between them.

page 45

Using the third method of expanding contexts involves considering a certain border as a specific region-a border within which one forms one's own way of life, one's own territorial communities, one's own image and sign systems. In reality, it can be either very small or very extensive territories. For example, the Transdniestrian Republic in modern Moldova can be represented as a specific region-border, if we consider it as a special case of the Moldovan-Ukrainian-Russian political and cultural border. Another example is the much more extensive territory of the historical Wild Field, which in the IX-XVIII centuries was a civilizational and political border region, which formed a number of territorial communities and figurative systems, primarily the Cossacks .19 A possible disadvantage of this method is the loss of specificity of the image of a certain border, its substantial "dissolution" in the study of the regional image.

3. STRATEGIES FOR REPRESENTING AND INTERPRETING HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGES OF BORDERS

There are two main strategies for representing historical and geographical images of borders: direct and indirect.

The direct strategy of representation is primarily associated with signs and symbols of the border (border posts, customs, outposts, cordon, uniforms, etc.), as well as with border rituals (exchange of official documents at the border, meeting border pickets or ambassadors of neighboring states at the border, crossing the border). It also includes, as a rule, "historical memories" that appeal to the borders of the past, actualizing the concept of lost territories .21 The opposite case is also possible - the emphasized ritualization of new borders in connection with the expansion of the state territory. It is not difficult to notice that this strategy is focused primarily on images of political borders, for which visual symbols and signs, certain rituals play an important role.

The indirect strategy of representation is based on a sharpened, attentive attitude of the society of a certain historical epoch to the problems of borders and the relations of borders of various types (natural, ethnic, political, cultural).

Of particular interest are discussions of the so-called natural borders of a State, such as France in the 17th century [22] or the Russian Federation in the early 1990s [23]. The sale of Alaska by the Russian Empire to the United States24 , as well as the rapid expansion of its territory in the second half of the 19th century. (Central Asia, Far East) - examples of an important methodological testing ground for using such a strategy. As a rule, an indirect strategy is effective during periods of fairly rapid changes in state territories as a result of wars, advances to undeveloped lands, and the collapse of the state, when society is trying to understand the validity of these changes and how to keep up with external events.

It is also possible to combine the two proposed representation strategies depending on the goals and objectives of the study, for example, the peculiarities of the dynamics of signs and symbols of certain borders in the public consciousness due to the rapid expansion or contraction of the territory.

There are also two basic strategies for interpreting border images: extensive (or expanding) and intensive (or compacting).

An extensive interpretation strategy is aimed at expanding the initially considered image of a certain border. This expansion can also be literal - the size of the study area of its formation increases. But the main thing here is a meaningful expansion of the image, which seems to capture and include new images, increasing the image-geographical space.

page 46

For example, the problem of the frontier in the New World is expanded in terms of both the problem of developing new territories and the problem of collision, struggle, and interaction of various cultures and civilizations of the Old and New World25. A particularly important aspect is the expansion of the image of the border by including completely different images of the border in its genesis, for example, the borders of the Inca Empire, which are closely related to the fundamentally different nature of the understanding of the connection between space and time in the Inca civilization .26

An intensive interpretation strategy is primarily collecting and reconstructing. Numerous small facts are collected around certain historical and geographical points that fix the original image of the border. Then the approximation begins, the" fitting " (naturally, figurative) of the collected facts, compacting the image itself.

Thus, the image of Mongolia (the political and geographical "buffer" between Russia and China in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ) can be well compacted by including interesting data on the state of Russian-Mongolian trade during this period, the main trading points and trading posts, as well as on routes, information collected, and the nature of descriptions of the most important regions of the world. famous Russian travelers to Central Asia, concerning Mongolia itself.

Just as in the case of representation strategies, it is possible to combine (in different proportions) both interpretation strategies, depending on the statement of research goals and objectives.

Let us consider as an example the formation of border images in Central Asia in the second half of the 19th century.

4. FORMATION OF HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGES OF BORDERS IN CENTRAL ASIA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY.

The geopolitical situation in Central Asia during the period under study was characterized by the intensive formation of new and, in fact, for the first time emerging here in the European, Western understanding of geopolitical borders, the formation of which determined the main contours and relief of this situation itself.

Dead lane. In the geopolitical sense, Afghanistan and, possibly, the territories of Turkmenistan and the Emirate of Bukhara adjacent to it from the north were the hub area, a kind of heartland of Central Asia by the middle of the XIX century. The geopolitical picture of the world here was turned inside out in relation to the ever expanding spheres of influence of Great Britain and Russia: India and Central Asia were, in fact, the geopolitical periphery, an appendage of Afghanistan.

"Asia, in its dead zone between Turkestan and India, is devoid of any affectation. From the Caspian salt marshes to the Khyber Pass, beyond which the mysterious India begins, it lies motionless from time immemorial, blue and shining with rows of naked ridges. They are clothed by silence, space, and the radiance of time, " writes L. Reisner in his book of travel essays (1925) 28 . The image of the dead zone most accurately reflects the well-known geocultural, civilizational and geopolitical static nature of this territory, as if intended as a buffer zone between different cultural worlds. But here, in fact, not West and East collided, but West and half - West, Europe and half-Europe, trying to agree in a European way, over the Asian millennial cultural and civilizational lines. This was already understood by contemporaries: politicians, military personnel, diplomats. Even before the Afghan demarcation of Russia and Great Britain, General M. D. Skobelev pointed out the emergence of a common geopolitical border between Russia and Great Britain in Asia, clearly defining the place of Afghanistan in the sphere of influence of Great Britain: "Although India is separated from the Central Asian possessions of Russia by Afghanistan, but it seems so; in fact, in a strategic sense, the borders of Russia and England in Asia have already converged." 29

page 47

The significance of Russia's conquest of Central Asia was determined not only and not so much by the value of these territories for the metropolis, but by their position in the newly emerging geopolitical space of Central Asia. "The acquisition of the Turkestan Region was completely accidental for Russia and, as our statesmen have repeatedly stated, it was a burden on Russia rather than a benefit. (...) Until now, Turkestan is not even a colony, and by the nature of its conquest and by the nature of its occupation by us, it cannot be called anything other than an operational base; the object of action is indicated by Providence." 30 Turkestan was swallowed up by Russia unnoticed; its real, natural colony was India.

The unnoticed and ill-conceived location of Turkestan in the Russian geopolitical space, its weak demarcation in it and its featureless relief lead to the fact that it is considered only as a geopolitical corridor to India. However, this is also a fact of gradual internal differentiation of the Russian geopolitical space, the Russian sphere of influence, and the emergence of territories with new geopolitical functions. Structuring the newly emerging geopolitical space of Central Asia in its Russian projection, often subconsciously or unconsciously, means its rapid hierarchization: Turkestan is a lower-order geopolitical zone, India is a higher-order strategic geopolitical goal, and Afghanistan is an intermediate-level territory. But this may also be an additional sign that, culturally and civilizationally, Russia was already discarded at the moment when it so easily outwardly conquered Central Asia; almost simultaneously, the ethno-cultural communities of the latter developed a protective civilizational film, an epidermis, that separated such different cultures and at the same time allowed them to coexist.

Forming borders. Different socio-historical environments determine the specifics of newly emerging geopolitical and state borders. In the context of this example, we can speak conditionally about two types of geopolitical borders - European, western and Asian, Eastern or Central Asian.

As early as the middle of the 19th century, when considering the borders of Russia and the Khiva Khanate, the Russian geographer and traveler N. A. Severtsov distinguished two types of borders in Central Asia: "... permanent borders of the settled population, and mobile, constantly changing borders of nomadic tribes paying the khan a kibittal fee " 31, closely related to the economic activities of the population. Permanent borders are essentially the internal borders of more or less permanent cores of Central Asian state entities that roughly coincide geographically with large agricultural oases. The nomadic periphery of these semi-states in the European sense determined the unstable, fluctuating nature of the external borders, when nomadic tribes, depending on specific circumstances, became subjects of one or another Central Asian ruler. Severtsov notes the mobile nature of the borders of the Kokand Khanate with the wild-stone Kirghiz and the Khiva Khanate with the Turkmens, concluding further: "It cannot be otherwise in the complete absence of international law in Central Asia." 32 In typological terms, the mobile borders identified by Severtsov can be equated simply with borderlands, or they can be presented as a kind of settled population frontiers, although they are very static and vague, in contrast to the classical frontier of North America.

The border of Russia with the Central Asian states and nomadic tribes represented the intersection of completely different geopolitical environments, and in the classical European or Western understanding of the border simply did not exist, did not exist. The territory of Central Asia in the second half of the XIX century is very neus-

page 48

a resilient, fluid geopolitical environment that barely began to acquire any high-quality, purely European characteristics, primarily with the invasion of Russian troops. In this situation, the potential structures of possible military actions, military strategy and tactics can, to a certain extent, act as an indicator of the most subtle, precise properties and qualities of the studied environment.

The report of the Russian retinue General Borch to the General Staff immediately after the conquest of the Akhal-Teka oasis in Turkmenistan (1881) clearly shows the wave nature of the geopolitical environment of the Transcaspian region. Borch notes the following key points of military strategy and tactics in the conditions of Central Asia: 1) the importance of any military victory gained; 2) to act and beat the enemy better in the field, in open terrain; 3) to place the main emphasis on military order and discipline in conditions of numerical superiority of the enemy 33 . This environment is extremely anisotropic, permeable in any direction, even amorphous; it is characterized by blurred communications (weak importance of fortresses, the importance of high mobility of troops, the need for their concentration in large groups and the danger of their dispersion) 34 , in general, the entire geo - or topographic space acts as a potentially communicative one.

Structuring the geopolitical space. Such structuring is directly related to the identification and demarcation of internal and external borders of the geopolitical space. At the same time, the newly annexed territory - in our case, Central Asia, conquered by Russian troops - initially acts as its conditional model or layout, later acquiring quite visible features and signs of a really functioning geopolitical space.

The initial allocation of internal borders is largely inertial, inheriting old political and cultural boundaries. Borch notes the need to divide Central Asia (according to his project - the Central Asian Viceroyalty) into three general governorates, the borders of which obviously correlate with the borders of the Bukhara Emirate, the Khiva Khanate and Turkmenistan .35 General Kuropatkin, in his report to the General Staff in 1887, has already largely overcome and mastered this inertia, taking into account mainly geopolitical and geocultural factors when drawing the Central Asian borders. In this respect, the territory of Central Asia, according to Kuropatkin, is quite clearly divided into the Turkestan Region and the Transcaspian region, while the geopolitical specialization of these regions is also determined. If the Turkestan Region is mainly oriented inward, as it were, towards the internal development of the territory of the Bukhara Emirate and the Khiva Khanate, then the Transcaspian region has a clearly defined external vector towards Persia (Iran )and Afghanistan - this should determine its administrative borders. 36 Kuropatkin records a certain discrepancy between the old political and ethnographic borders in Central Asia, suggesting to eliminate it in the new administrative division; thus, in fact, the Central Asian geopolitical and geocultural space introduces signs, characteristics, and principles of division of Modern European spaces, largely focused on convergence, identity of ethnographic, national and political borders .37

The geopolitical space and its structure are in direct, direct connection with the geocultural and geo-economic spaces; drawing geopolitical borders, structuring the geopolitical space clearly exposes and demonstrates this connection. The clash between the European principles and the Central Asian principles of division of the geopolitical space, which are still very weak in the European or Russian projection, was revealed when determining the significance of large rivers as possible political borders. In the conditions of Central Asia, the strongest mosaic of the geocultural space and the obvious polarization of the geo-economic space of the Syr - Darya, Amu-Darya, and Zerav rivers-

page 49

shang. Or, Tejen, Murghab represent powerful economic-geographical and cultural-geographical cores or cores of large territories; but thus they cannot be real internal geopolitical borders. This correlation was disrupted by the simultaneous pressure on the traditional Central Asian geopolitical space from the north and from the south during the 19th century. Russian and British empires; compression and partially even the destruction of the traditional geopolitical space led to a new, as if semi-European or European geopolitical structuring of the territory, revealing a new geopolitical relief, in which large rivers are a natural anchor for possible political borders. This geopolitical conflict was noticed and described by Kuropatkin, of course, in the traditional terms of his time .38

As a rule, the restructuring of the geopolitical space leads to a kind of geo-economic redistribution. Thus, Kuropatkin foresaw the economic expansion of Turkestan proper to the Transcaspian region, on the left bank of the Amu Darya: "With the pacification of the Turkmen steppes, an influx of hardworking and skilled landowners from the Bukhara possessions will appear on the left bank of the Amu Darya, who will revive the once flourishing areas without undesirable expenditure of money and forces of the Russian population, and this will further bind the strip the left bank of the Amu-Darya River with Turkestan " 39 . In turn, the modified geo-economic space largely determines the structure of the new geopolitical space; in this case, it emphasizes the obviously asymmetric bipolar structure of the Central Asian geopolitical space of the 1880s-the Transcaspian region acts here as a kind of appendage, outgrowth, periphery, in contrast to the Turkestan region as the core of this space.

The problem of structuring geopolitical spaces is related to the problem of their allocation or formation, i.e., their genesis. The allocation of the Central Asian geopolitical space in the study period is associated with the progress of Russia and Great Britain towards each other, while both powers for a long time could not determine exactly by what, relatively speaking, geopolitical rules they should play. The traditional Asian geopolitical image of Russia for Western European powers as a constant violator of international treaties is transformed into a European one in the context of Central Asia; here, Great Britain is negotiating with Russia as if with a purely European power that observes all the European rules of the game against the background of the poorly studied and unreliable Central Asian geopolitical substrate. There is a leap of Russia from one geopolitical coordinate system to another; Russia as Asia in Europe becomes Europe in Asia; in this case, geopolitical dynamics is primarily the dynamics of geopolitical or political-geographical images.

The traditional image of Russia in Europe and its transformation in the context of Central Asia are reflected in the interesting notes of an English officer Ridgway, who participated in the Afghan demarcation of Russia and Great Britain. Drawing the northern Afghan border on the ground was, in essence, the imposition of European political geography on the local Central Asian context, the compression of the geopolitical space to the allocation of the actual political and geographical relief, which in this case could be only or exclusively European. In this connection, the passage of the pure practitioner Ridgeway, who is forced to manipulate political and geographical images and struggle with the Asian hypostases of Russia that are familiar to him, is expressive: "Now I will turn to the second objection, according to which "the border marked with pillars planted in the sand is a cardboard border. How can it keep the Russians out?" (...) The essence here is not in the methods of demarcation, but in the promise, confirmed by the royal word of the Russian Emperor, according to which the border will be respected. There is, as I know, a popular opinion ...that Russia voluntarily enters into treaties in order to then have the pleasure of violating them... as for its movement in

page 50

I can say that in this case it is beyond this deplorable accusation. Its movement was indeed inevitable, until it encountered another powerful power. " 40

Structuring the geopolitical space fundamentally changes the attitude to the territory, region and its borders. The definition of the northern Afghan border in the 1870s-1880s, the border of the spheres of influence of the two largest powers in Central Asia, was essentially a process of creating, implanting a European border on Asian territory, in fact, as if in a bare place. The Asian border, therefore, is a consequence of the European border, a projection of its ideal image on the political "tabula rasa" of Central Asia, since in the conventional Asian geopolitical consciousness these borders simply do not exist; the image of the border is completely different, and this happens even and primarily at the language level - the word "border" in Russian or English in its full traditional meaning, it is apparently untranslatable into Turkmen, Uzbek, Hazara, or Pashto. The creation of a real European border became a key issue in the development of new or new geopolitical spaces: "The issue was not about preserving the inviolability of the territory of the Emir (Afghan. - DZ . This responsibility had already been assumed, but it was up to Her Majesty's Government to decide whether this responsibility was assumed for Afghanistan, whose border is unknown and disputed, or for Afghanistan, whose border is defined and accepted by Russia by virtue of a formal international obligation." 41

Obviously, the Afghan delineation was one of the first precedents for purposeful structuring of local or regional geopolitical spaces in a global context.A new local geopolitical border is already involved or exists in a broader geopolitical space from the very beginning, as if by birthright. The Afghan border is a classic example of a vividly anamorphic geopolitical space; an important element, up to the present time, primarily of the European, and now of the transatlantic and trans-Pacific geopolitical spaces. " But, it will be argued, such a border allows Russia to declare war on us at any moment. I agree. But, on the other hand, it should be noted that Russia will not violate its borders until it is ready for war and, obviously, not only in Central Asia, but in all parts of the world. ( ... )...if war breaks out for any other reason, it is very likely that Russia will then cross the Afghan border, if it sees this movement as a convenient diversion and military success. In other words, the war in Europe may be the reason for the violation of the Afghan border, but not vice versa. 42 In a broader context, V. L. Tsymbursky revealed a detailed connection between the cycles of Russia's European and Asian geopolitical activities43, while all the most important components of Russia's actions in Asia and the East are primarily dynamic elements of the European geopolitical space.

Structuring a new geopolitical space or re-structuring old, traditional ones leads to intensive processes of their compression and decompression, and they become especially complex when geopolitical spaces of fundamentally different types interact, as if initially ignoring each other. During the Afghan demarcation of 1873-1885, border disputes had a purely European background, which was well noticed by Ridgway: "We sought for the Afghans lands that had never been inhabited or occupied by them and had long belonged to the Punjin Turkmens, basing these demands on the letter of the London protocol of 1885; Russia, for its part, insisted on the allocation of lands along the Amu Darya for Bukhara, which had long belonged to Afghanistan, relying on its claims to the agreement of 1873" 44 .

page 51

The general principles of organization of geopolitical spaces of the conventionally European type required a certain generalization of more specific local cultural and geographical boundaries, whereas the traditional space of the conventionally Asian or Central Asian type is very archaic and lives largely according to the laws of the identity of geographical boundaries of various orders. In the case of the Afghan demarcation, the symmetry of Russian and British territorial claims was complemented by the asymmetry of geopolitical subjects - Russia directly represented the interests of the Emirate of Bukhara, while Afghanistan officially acted as an equal and direct partner in negotiations, although all political decisions were made, of course, by Russia and Great Britain.

Geopolitical situation in Turkmenistan in the 1880s. The penetration of the Transcaspian region, or Turkmenistan, was the apogee and at the same time practically the final point of the Russian advance into Central Asia throughout the 19th century. The capture of Turkmenistan was the result of the resultant two directions of Russian expansion - from the west (north-west) and east (north-east). In fact, it turned out to be possible to distinguish two spatiotemporal circles of Russia's progressive movement deep into Central Asia: the first-in the 1860s, when the Orenburg and West Siberian lines closed in the Syrdarya basin, the second - in the 1880s, when the troops of the Caucasian Military District during the capture of Turkmenistan came into contact with the territory already occupied by Russian troops moving from Turkestan 45 .

Even the Russian name of Turkmenistan - the Transcaspian region - indicated its belonging in the sphere of Russian geopolitical interests to the Transcaucasian sector. A similar geopolitical shift to the west. The Caspian Sea as a natural barrier, the purely military methods of Russian control of Transcaucasia led to a certain complexity, tortuosity and low efficiency of narrowly specialized military communications from the center through Transcaucasia to the Transcaspian region and back. Thus, detailed information about the situation in Turkmenistan and the capture of Merv reached the Russian government through private correspondence rather than through the Ministry of War. 46

The Transcaspian region was a marginal region, a periphery in the sphere of geopolitical interests of the Russian government, which even seemed to slow down its conquest, which threatened a direct clash with England and the redistribution of all the old geopolitical borders in Central Asia. The situation was complicated by the emergence of the problem of forming essentially global or frontal geopolitical borders that crossed the whole of Asia, of which the problem of Central Asian borders was a part 47 . The purely military leadership of the Russian advance in Central Asia, the management of the newly annexed territories by the Ministry of War, served as a kind of shock absorber, a geopolitical pad that allowed the Russian Foreign Ministry to get some respite, time to justify either its own political procrastination, or, conversely, rapid military actions that were not prepared for the corresponding steps in the field of international diplomacy, actions and seizures.

By advancing into Turkmenistan, Russia also violated purely local and regional spheres of geopolitical interests. Thus, a significant part of Turkmenistan was, in fact, the Iranian (Persian) frontier, a large cultural and geographical border of the Iranian and Turkic-speaking (Turan) worlds, a place of constant struggle of settled but weakened Persia with the raids of semi-nomadic Turkmen tribes. At the beginning of his career (1879), Colonel of the General Staff Kuropatkin wrote to the Russian Minister of War Milyutin: "Our movement to the Turkmen steppes is beneficial for Persia and these benefits should be recognized by the Persian government. Therefore, in our military operations, it seems better to abandon the occupation of the upper reaches of the Atrek, for example, than to give Persia a reason to be hostile to our movement deep into the Turkmen steppes. " 48

page 52

Landscape and environment. Unlike other parts of Central Asia, where local state entities still had some stable settled-agricultural cores of their territories, when invading Turkmenistan, the Russians were faced not just with the instability and fluidity of the local geopolitical environment, but with literal fluidity, the variability of the landscape and habitat itself, the immediate topography of the area.

Turkmenistan was characterized by an oasis settlement system, but the oasis territory itself, as a rule, presented a shaky and unstable picture: "All this population is scattered throughout the territory of the oasis in small villages, or both, very rarely reaching up to 200-300 tents. The Oba on the outskirts of the oasis is only a closely packed group of sooty caravans, like beehives, without any buildings. It is very difficult to list both of them, and it would even be pointless to put them on a map, since, depending on the time of year and many other reasons, both their location and the number of caravans often change. Similarly, the names of these villages are also unstable, which are given mainly by the names of elders or one of the influential people. " 49 The landscape of Turkmenistan turns out to be fluid, as well as what holds it together, creates it - water, irrigation, artificial channels.

It was the distribution of water and the location of irrigation systems that determined the overall economic and economic geography of the country, but it also determined its political geography (administrative units were created by channels), management (orders and fees also went through channels) and the social stratification of society, in which the amount of water was a measure of wealth and distinction. Finally, this method of water use itself made it possible to more or less accurately determine the number of population 50 . With this fluctuation, instability of the landscape, its purely material fragility, there are also peculiar criteria, signs of a decisive military victory in local conditions: "... here in Asia, the risk in military affairs is much less justified than in the European theater of operations. Asia has always understood victory and defeat in its own way; victory must necessarily be associated with material damage to the enemy; here it is necessary to act for sure and finally finish after success, and these two conditions exclude haste during the preparatory period. " 51 The fragile landscape and sparse habitat lead to a certain geopolitical amorphousness of actions, the priority of the military component in them, and a fundamentally different structure of the military actions themselves.

Structure of the Asian border. Russia's advance into Turkmenistan has led to a kind of consolidation, hardening, and refinement of the Turkmen-Iranian border, which makes us take a closer look at the structure of this border, which is probably one of the most typical in Asia. The Asian border is understood here as a relatively large barrier territory, a strip between different states or semi-state entities, whose political regime of existence, although it can be formalized de jure by appropriate political agreements, is de facto an interweaving of heterogeneous, fragmented local and regional power structures. There is no doubt that such a territory is buffered, but its specificity lies precisely in its peculiar geopolitical disorder and external randomness; it is a compressed, but rather amorphous, from the point of view of a conventional European observer, geopolitical interlace.

By the early 1880s, the Turkmen-Persian border was a politically loosely defined strip, where the local and fragmentary expansion of Turkmen tribes to capture slaves, livestock, and new water-rich lands was roughly balanced by the large military forces of the Persian government, which could, however, be used as a counterbalance.,

page 53

guarantee only the existing status quo and periodic payment of taxes by a number of border Turkmen tribes .52 A series of mutual robberies and raids fixed the conditional, fluctuating boundaries of this strip. The sparse, amorphous border, which can be attributed to the subtype of the Asian border identified here, is characterized, as a rule, by the extreme heterogeneity of the military and political - geographical space that organizes it, and at the same time its strong polarization, unstable and floating, depending on the specific local or regional geopolitical situation. Thus, the Persian border fortress of Serax (Serakhs) was a typical frontier island in a territory that was practically not controlled by Persian border detachments, although it was formally part of the Persian province. "Serax is a very extensive fortification, occupied by one battalion (about 700 men) of Persian infantry; fields and vegetable gardens are located inside the walls. The environs of Serax were constantly the scene of the exploits of the Merv Tekinans and the Persians do not dare to show themselves from the fortification, the commandant takes with him a convoy of at least 50 horsemen when traveling 5-6 versts. (...) Of course, the Tequins have never tried to take Serax; however, there is no need to do this, the garrison of the fortress is not at all dangerous for them; it will never dare to go to the aid of a caravan that will be plundered at the closest distance from the walls. " 53

The very concept of an Asian border implies indistinctness, vagueness of its contours and outlines; the structure of such a border can only be described relatively, given its, as a rule, significant territorial dimensions and at the same time the fragility and fluidity of its main geopolitical parameters. In terms of space and time, this territory is pulsating, periodically penetrated by the routes of raids of border tribes, which lead to a short-term expansion of the border itself and to its instantaneous internal restructuring.: "Along the whole road from Serax to Shadiche there is not a single village; everywhere there are traces of ruined irrigation, abandoned fields, mills, and cisterns, but no one dares to live here: the Tekinans used to choose this road for their raids into Persia and often went along it beyond Mashhad. On the tops of the most forbidding mountains, you can see the ruins of towers that served to watch out for bands of Tekin who could make their way through the side valleys to Mashhad. " 54 In the most general form, the skeleton of the border is primarily the approximate directions of nomadic raids and attacks and the accompanying large border fortifications and a system of observation posts that attract them. The very settlement and economic fabric of this territory is here a second-order element, fragile and often disintegrating; breaks in this fabric form the structure of the Asian border.

The existence of the Asian border is closely related to the specific geopolitical situation, the field of which determines its specifics and parameters. The consolidation of the political-geographical border leads to the gradual disappearance of its Asian components; the very image of such a border ceases to be effective in explaining the local or regional geopolitical situation; moreover, the political-geographical border becomes rather autonomous to a certain extent - the geopolitical situation is no longer a decisive factor in its functioning.

The advance of Russian troops in Turkmenistan and the annexation of Turkmenistan to Russia led to a peculiar effect of geopolitical animation on the Persian - Turkmen border. The prohibition of alamans (raids) by the Russian military authorities, despite the inability to strictly control this instruction, nevertheless entailed the restructuring of the Persian-Turkmen border even before the appearance of Russian military detachments there, the natural death of the Asian border and its main structural components, including the network of observation of raid routes: "Recently, this observation of the Persian-Turkmen border has led to the It stopped on the way, so

page 54

how robberies decreased, especially after the capture of Geok Tepe. "The Russian Emperor forbade robbing the Persians," explain the residents of" " 55 . The obvious persuasiveness of purely military arguments in the traditional geopolitical conditions of Central Asia, in this case on the part of the Russians, led to the previously unusual law-abiding nature of the main Turkmen tribes; the peculiarities of the nomadic mentality, if one can speak of one, paradoxically accelerated the blurring of the typical Asian border and the formation of a political and geographical border that is similar in appearance in its basic parameters to the European one.

The Asian border is a geopolitical entity, a system whose structure is largely determined by natural geographical boundaries and barriers. The type of European border, which is rigidly structured and to a certain extent abstracted from a specific territory, already implies some distance and at the same time direct consideration of physical and geographical realities, which are simply integrated into the geopolitical balance that has already been established in its main features. The Asian border lives on natural geographical boundaries; the conventional European border takes them into account, or, in their absence, is forced to quickly and clearly record this fact. The discovery in 1881 of the absence of a natural geographical barrier between Turkmenistan and the northwestern edge of Afghanistan with the strategically important city of Herat (previously thought to be separated by the Parapamiz snow ridge) by the Russian traveler, engineer and later well-known diplomat P. M. Lessar accelerated negotiations between Great Britain and Russia on the exact northern border of Afghanistan, which nevertheless it was, of course, initially focused on well-known physical and geographical - oro - and hydrographic-frontiers .56

Joining Merv. The military-political and diplomatic struggle for Merv between Great Britain, Russia and Persia in the 1870s and 1880s defined it as a geopolitical pain point or even a hub in Central Asia. The capture of Geok Tepe by Russian troops led to a disruption of the geopolitical balance in Central Asia and to the emergence of a kind of self-awareness of the Merv people themselves; one of them, Maili Khan, even compared Merv to a girl whose hands are looking for 5-6 applicants, and "who the bride will marry is unknown" 57 .

Great Britain's actions in this situation were more clear both because of the natural concern about the advance of the Russian troops of the Afghan emir, whose wazir Syed Nur Muhammad Shah Khan stated back in 1873 that " the border of Afghanistan is in reality the border of India. The interests of Afghanistan and Britain completely coincide " 58 and because of the fear that the occupation of Merv by the Russians will be the beginning of an offensive on Herat. One of the British politicians of that era, the Duke of Argyll, figuratively called the series of political and military actions of Great Britain related to the Merv problem "nervousness" 59. Great Britain, whose troops were further removed from the immediate theater of geopolitical operations than the Russians or the Persians, nevertheless managed to clearly formulate its interests at this point and identify them with the interests of one of the active participants in the conflict - Afghanistan.

The position of Russia, which, although it had a certain confidant and convenient intermediary in negotiations with the Mervtsy-the Khanate of Khiva, and also quite effectively neutralized the local geopolitical interests of Persia, was much more vague, more vague. The vagueness of this position was due to the well-known differences on the Merv issue between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the headquarters of the Caucasian Army, the weak coordination of military and diplomatic actions, moreover, their multidirectional nature, as well as the weak awareness of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the specific state of affairs in Turkmenistan led to a ragged, unpredictable rhythm of Russia's actions .60 Russia tried to give its expansion in Turkmenistan a buffer character - in February 1883, the ruler of Mervsky

page 55

Babajan Bek, a Khiva official, became an oasis leader with the help of Russia, but his rule only led to the strengthening of "pro-English orientation among some Turkmen elders" 61 . The geopolitical situation in Central Asia in the 1880s was clearly asymmetric: Great Britain had a powerful buffer - Afghanistan, while Russia, quickly absorbing the state and semi-state formations of Central Asia, was forced to act each time as if on its own behalf; the Khanate of Khiva and the Emirate of Bukhara, not completely destroyed by it, could not play any role.-some independent, at least outwardly, role.

The annexation of Merv (1884) decided the fate of the whole of Turkmenistan. Immediately after that, the development of Turkmenistan by Russia went quite quickly: already in 1884, the authorities of the Transcaspian region had de facto independence; the Transcaspian Railway, a classic tool of Western geopolitics of the late XIX-early XX centuries, already in 1886 reached Merv, and in 1888 - to Samarkand. "...Mary (Merv), which seemed to Europeans to be some kind of inaccessible and mysterious city hidden in the desert and mountainous regions, was already connected by a railway line to the rest of the world in the second year after its annexation to Russia," writes M. N. Tikhomirov. 62

The Transcaspian region, as already noted, was actually an exclave of the Russian Transcaucasia in Central Asia; the Caucasus itself was obviously a powerful colonization base in relation to Turkmenistan; it also played the role of a kind of geocultural buffer zone between Russia proper and classical Central Asia. There were many representatives of the Caucasian peoples in the Russian troops in Turkmenistan, and one of them, Avarets Alikhanov, was an active participant in the main events of Turkmenistan's annexation to Russia. The geopolitical specialization of the Transcaspian region within the Russian sphere of influence in Central Asia was determined quite quickly - it was mainly a Persian (Iranian) buffer, and the exact demarcation of the borders of Russia, Persia and Afghanistan according to European canons did not interfere with the annual diplomatic complications due to the migration of Iomut Turkmens from Russian territory to Persian and back .63 The head of the Transcaspian region therefore had an elevated managerial status, taking on the performance of not only military and civilian elements of management, but also a number of diplomatic functions in relations with Persia and Afghanistan.

Apparently, the true significance of the bizarre interweaving and interaction of such diverse cultures and civilizations in Turkmenistan was never realized by the Russian administration, at least in geopolitical aspects; the emergence of administrative and political incidents continued until the end of the XIX century. The most striking of them, a characteristic indicator of weak and inadequate development of the territory, is the determination of the age of marriage of Turkmen Muslim girls by the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg, which, rather, was guided by Sharia and adat laws; this case was directly handled by the head of the Transcaspian region .64

Historical features of the Russian geopolitical and geocultural space. By the end of the 19th century, this space acquired the qualitative parameters that still determine its dynamics. The huge size of the Russian Empire's territory, on the one hand, led to a kind of dilution, sparseness of its space, and on the other - contributed to its military, sharply polarized structure: "In fact, Russia was like an army fighting on stretched communications lines, in territories far removed from its borders." 65 The well - known and frequently mentioned fact that the territory of Russia increased 36-fold in 400 years, from the 16th to the beginning of the 20th centuries, should also be interpreted from the standpoint of the geopolitical and geocultural qualities of this space.

page 56

The orientalist historian A. N. Meshcheryakov considers Russian culture to be "farsighted", extroverted, active in relation to the external space, in contrast, for example, to Japanese culture - "short-sighted", introverted, mastering primarily the near, "near-body" space .66 Obviously, such a definition of Russian culture means its original qualitative parameters. From our point of view, the Russian geopolitical and geocultural space - in the form in which it has been functioning for about the last 100 years-has a weak information and communication infrastructure; examples of the Crimean, Eastern, Russian-Japanese wars, the Afghan and Chechen conflicts indicate a chronic unstructured, well-known amorphous Russian geocultural and geopolitical space. far space, which is the main goal, and near space, nuclear, designed to provide effective communications, as a rule, fails. Inversion of the core and periphery, their known discontinuity, and weak connectivity are qualitative characteristics of this space.

The psychophysiology of vision assumes that there are different coordinates for different color spaces, and different coordinate systems may not be equivalent:" ...what is visible in some coordinates is invisible in others "67." The observer perceives color in his own color space, which occurs at the level of horizontal retinal cells " 68 . The autonomy and a certain stability of the Russian geopolitical and geocultural space is based to a large extent on its geographical scales, but is not determined only by them; it can be designated as "the observer's own color space". The role of external geopolitical and geocultural borders is extremely important for the Russian space - in fact, their dynamics largely determine internal geopolitical and geocultural processes; border situations have a decisive influence on the dynamics of the geopolitical and geocultural core. Extroverted Russian culture has an inverted geocultural space.

In the long run, this point of view should be supported by a peculiar hierarchy of interpretations, similar to the structure of models of constant visual perception: "...in meta-constant conditions, when the observed scene includes a certain fragment of a reproduction of a third-party (virtual - for real) scene, with their own lighting circumstances... ( ... ). They reveal ...plasticity of the visual system, ...its mobile readiness to have a hierarchy of interpretations, based on a hierarchically ordered map of the division of the visual field into regions of independent spatial and color representation " 69 .

Thus, we can probably speak, in relation to the problem under study, about the formation of peculiar, unique geopolitical and colonization patterns, traces that form areas of independent spatial representations that segment the overall picture, and allow us to develop mechanisms for changing alternative interpretation procedures 70 . Finally, it is fundamentally important to declare the scientific autonomy of these procedures, regardless of the political and cultural atmosphere of the era, which is well correlated by analogy with the" rollback of the zone of importance " in the processes of visual processing with a fundamental correction for color in the field of service segmentation procedures 71 .

Instead of an afterword. The territorial and political fragmentation of the" core " of the Euro-Asian continent (which for centuries served as the space of the Russian Empire and the USSR) and the subsequent shift in international relations gave rise to a new wave of scientific and public interest in geopolitical interpretations of history. In science, however, this interest has not generally gone out of fashion. One of the reasons for this is the traditionally superficial attitude of the humanist to the facts of geography - physical, economic, strategic, etc.-

page 57

a commercial one. In this sense, I consider D. N. Zamyatin's article as a good sign of change. It, so to speak, "unfolds" the humanitarian consciousness in the face of serious geographical material. The author recalls the most obvious but forgotten truth that the historical process takes place not in the space of ideological symbols, but in the territories of the globe, that resources, centers of power, communications, as well as peoples, civilizations, and cultures exist only in geographical certainty.

Describing the Russian advance in the last third of the 19th century to Western Turkestan and the Transcaspian region ("Central Asia"), D. N. Zamyatin touches upon two problems that are highly relevant and whose comprehensive discussion is undoubtedly overdue.

One of the problems is the history of the formation of the concept of " Central Asia "and, accordingly, ideas about the borders of the" Central Asian " region. The third decade-long war for Afghanistan gives a serious reason to re-examine the reasons that prompted A. E. Snesarev, who relied on the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. Curzon, outline "Central Asia" ("Middle East") as a set of territories of Russian Turkestan, Khiva, Bukhara, Tibet, Kashgaria, Pamir, Afghanistan, Eastern Persia, and British India. And the second problem in connection with the first is the answer to the question to what extent the Russian advance into Central Asia was a strategically integral and historically justified "response" to the" challenge " of British expansionism at a time when Britain, using naval superiority, was "opening" the markets of Japan one by one by force of arms, China, Siam, Burma, Persia.

V. I. MAKSIMENKO

notes

'See, for example: Turner V. Symbol and ritual, Moscow: Glav. ed. Nauka Publishing House, 1983; Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe, Moscow, 1991; Toynbee A. Postizhenie istorii, Moscow: Progress, 1991; Spengler O. Zakat Evropy, Vol. 1-2, Moscow: Mysl, 1993-1998; Harutyunova-Fidanyan V. A. Armenian-Byzantine contact zone (X-XI centuries). Results of interaction of cultures, Moscow: Nauka. Izd. firm "Vostochnaya literatura", 1994; Semenov S. Iberoamericanskaya i vostochno - evropeiskaya obshchnosti kak pogranichnye kul'tury [Iberoamerican and Eastern European communities as borderline cultures]. 1994. N 2. pp. 159-170; Civilizations and cultures. Scientific almanac. Edited by B. S. Erasov. Issues 1-3. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies, 1994-1996; Pomerants G. Vykhod iz trance [Exit from trance], Moscow: Yurist, 1995, pp. 205-239; Podoroga V. A. Expression and meaning: Landscape myths of Philosophy, Moscow: Admarginem, 1995. Likhachev D. S. Two types of borders between cultures//Russian literature. 1995. N 3. pp. 4-6; Baak, wang Y. About the boundaries of Russian culture //Ibid., pp. 12-20; Zhuravlev O. V. On the concept of borderline ethnic ideology //Ibid., pp. 73-80; Gindin L. A. Tsymbursky V. L. Homer and the history of the Eastern Mediterranean, Moscow: Nauka. Izd. firm "Vostochnaya literatura", 1996; Melo A. Transoceanic Express/ / Khudozhestvenny Zhurnal. 1997. N 16. pp. 9-13; Korolev S. A. Infinite space: geo - and sociographic images of power in Russia. Moscow: IF RAS, 1997; Lurie S. V. Historical Ethnology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 1997; Pelipenko A. A., Yakovenko I. G. Kul'tura kak sistema. Moscow: Izd-vo "Languages of Russian Culture", 1998; Comparative study of civilizations: A Textbook / Comp., ed. B. S. Erasova, Moscow: Aspect Press, 1998; Eisenstadt Sh. Revolution and transformation of societies. Comparative study of civilizations, Moscow: Aspect Press, 1999; Isaeva M. V. Representations of the world and the state in China in the III-IV centuries AD (according to the "normative historiopisanii"), Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000; Anon. Slavs and Turks: The borderlands of Islam in Europe. L.: The Leisure Hour Office, 1876; Cvijic J. The eones of civilization of the Balkan Peninsula // Geographical Review. 1918. 5(6). P. 470^482; Prescott J.R.V. The geography of frontiers and boundaries. L.: Hutchnson, 1965; Said E.W. Orientalism (revised 1978 ed). Harmondswoith: Penguin, 1985; Peckham R.S. Between east and west: the border writing of Yeoryios Vizyinos//Ecumene. 1996. 3(2). P. 167- 187.; Liewellyn Smith М. Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922 (revised 1973 ed.). L.: Hurst, 1998 и др.

2 See, for example: Gauthier Yu. V. Istoriya oblastnogo upravleniya v Rossii ot Petr I do Ekateriny II [History of Regional Administration in Russia from Peter I to Catherine II]. Vol. 1-2. Moscow-L., 1913-1941; Yakovlev A. Zasechnaya cherta Moskovskogo gosudarstva v XVII v. Moscow, 1916; Zagorovsky

page 58

V. P. Belgorod line. Voronezh, 1969; Beskrovny L., Tikhvinsky S., Khvostov V. K istorii formirovaniya russko-kitaiskoi granitsy [On the history of the Russian-Chinese border formation]. 1972. N 6; Formation of the border between Russia and the Qing China, Moscow, 1974; Kargalov V. V. On the steppe border, Moscow, 1974; Zagorovsky V. P. Izumskaya cherta. Voronezh, 1980; Mizis Yu. A. Iz istorii Tambovskaya cherty XVII veka [From the history of Tambov region in the 17th century] // Voronezh Region on the southern borders of Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries). Voronezh, 1981; same name. Geographical contours of the Tambov line in the XVII century / / Problems of Historical Geography of Russia. Issue 1. Moscow, 1982; Besprozvannykh E. L. Priamurye v russko-kitayskikh otnosheniyakh [The Amur Region in Russian-Chinese Relations]. Kuchkin V. A. Formirovanie gosudarstvennoi territorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rus ' v X-XIV vvakh [Formation of the State Territory of North-Eastern Russia in the X-XIV centuries], Moscow, 1984; Zagorovskiy V. P. Obshchii ocherk istorii zaselenii i khozyaistvennogo razvitiya yuzhnykh okrainin Rossii v epokhu zrelogo feodalizma (XV [- the beginning of the XVIII century) / / Istoriya zaselenii i khozyaistvennogo razvitiya Voronezhskogo kraya v epokhu feudalism. Voronezh, 1987; Yoshida K. On the eastern section of the Sino-Russian border under the Treaty of Nerchinsk (spec. issue of INION). Moscow, 1990; Zagorovsky V. P. The history of the entry of the Central Chernozem region into the Russian state in the XVI century. Voronezh, 1991; Dyakova N. A. Russia-Latvia-Estonia: History and Today's Reality. Politics. Ideology. 1995. N 1. P. 47-57; same name. Lithuanian territory in a retrospective of Russian-Lithuanian relations // 1994. N 11. pp. 77-89; Dyakova N. A., Chepelkin M. A. Borders of Russia in the XVII-XX centuries. Historical sketch. Appendix to the "History of Russia". Moscow: Center for Military-Strategic and Military-Technological Research of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Shik Publishing House, RIC "SAMPO", 1995; Voskresensky A.D. Diplomatic history of the Russian-Chinese St. Petersburg Treaty of 1881. Moscow: "Monuments of historical Thought" 1995; Shevardin V. N. Borders of Germany in its history (rec.). Voprosy istorii. 1995. N 4. pp. 169-170; Savchenko V. N. East Slavic-Polish borderlands. 1918-1921 Etnosotsialnaya situatsiya i gosudarstvennoe politicheskoe razmezhevanie [Ethnosocial situation and state political demarcation]. Administrative policy in the first half of the XIX century Omsk: Omsk. un-t, 1995; same name. Autocracy and Siberia. Administrative policy of the second half of the XIX-early XX centuries. Omsk: Omsk. un-t, 1997; Lyubavsky M. K. Obzor istorii russkoi kolonizatsii s drevneyshikh vremeni i do XX veka [Review of the history of Russian colonization from ancient times to the XX century]. University, 1996; Arunova M. R., Shumilov O. M. Ocherki istorii formirovaniya gosudarstvennykh granitei mezhdunarodnoi, SSSR i Afganom [Essays on the history of the formation of state borders between Russia, the USSR and Afghanistan]. Border of Russia with Afghanistan (historical essay), Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998; Kulagina L. M., Dunaeva E. V. Border of Russia with Iran (history of formation), Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998; Oreshkova S. F., Ulchenko N. Yu. Russia and Turkey (problems of border formation).: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999; Yakovenko I. G. Russian State: National Interests, Borders, Prospects. Novosibirsk: "Siberian Chronograph", 1999; Mironov B. N. Sotsial'naya istoriya Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII - nachalo XX v.) V 2 vols. Vol.1. Genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoi semey, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva [Social history of Russia during the Empire period (XVIII-early XX century) In 2 volumes]. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1999. pp. 51-53; Mitterauer M. Istoricheskie strukturnye granitsy v Vostochnoi Evrope [Historical structural borders in Eastern Europe]. 1999. N 2. P. 6; Laserson M. M. The Curzon line. A History and Critical Analysis. N.Y., 1944; Bill V.T. The Circular Frontier of Muscovy // Russian Review. 1950. 9/1. P. 45-52; Summer В.Н. The Frontier //Survey of Russian History. Ch. 1. L., 1961.P. 1-46; Sahlins P. Boundaries: The making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989; Deutschland Grenzen in der Geschicthe. Munchen: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1993, et al.

3 See, for example. The Afghan boundary. Negotiations between Russia and Great Britain 1872-1885 St. Petersburg, 1886; Reisner I. Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 and the division of Afghanistan / / Red Archive, vol. 3 (10). Moscow-L.: State Publishing House, 1925, pp. 57-69; Klimenko B. M. Gosudarstvennaya territoriya. Voprosy teorii i praktika mezhdunarodnogo prava [Issues of Theory and Practice of International Law], Moscow, 1974; Prokhorenko I. Ponyatie granitsy v sovremennoy geopolitike [The concept of Borders in modern Geopolitics]. 1993. N 5; Lurie S., Kazaryan L. Principles of organization of geopolitical space / / Social sciences and modernity. 1994. N 4. pp. 85-97; Krom M. M. Mezhd Rus'yu i Litvoy: Zapadnorusskie zemli v sisteme russko-litovskikh otnosheniy kontsa XV - pervoi treti XVI v. [Between Russia and Lithuania: Western Russian lands in the system of Russian-Lithuanian relations of the late XV-first third of the XVI century]. 1995. N 1. S. 39-58; Ilyin M. V. the problem of the formation of the "island Russia" and the contours of its internal geopolitics // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Episode 12. Political sciences. 1995. N 1; Disputable borders in the Caucasus, Moscow: Vse mir Publ., 1996; Ilyin M. V. Geochronopolitika - soedinenie vremeni i prostranstv [Geochronopolitika-connecting Times and Spaces]. un-ta. Episode 12. Political sciences. 1997. N 2. Pp. 28-44; Yanin V. L. Novgorod and Lithuania: border situations of the XIII-XV centuries. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. Univ., 1998; Bassalygo L. A., Yanin VL. Historical and geographical overview of the Novgorod-Lithuanian border // Ibid., pp. 104-213; Rupasov A. I. Soviet-Finnish border. 1918-1938 St. Petersburg: European House, 2000; Dolenko D. V. Politika i territoriya [Politics and Territory]. Fundamentals of political regional studies. Saransk: Mordovian Publishing House. ун- та, 2000;

page 59

Multidimensional borders of Central Asia / Edited by M. B. Olcott and A. Malashenko, Moscow: Gandalf, 2000; Ratzel F. The territorial growth of states // Scottish Geographical Magazine. 1896. 12. P. 351-361; Hodlich Т. The use of practical geography illustrated by recent frontier operations // Geographical Journal. 1899. 13(5). P. 465-480; Curzon de Keddleston. Lord. Frontiers, The Roman Lecture. Oxford, 1907; Holdich T. Political Frontiers and Boundary Making. L., 1916: Adami V. National Frontiers in Relation to International Law/Tranc. by T.T. Behrens. L., 1927; Lapradelle P. de. La frontiere: etude de droit international. P., 1928; Ancel J. Les frontiers. P., 1938; Boggs W. International Boundaries: A Study of Boundary Functions and Problems. N.Y., 1940: Jones S. Boundary-Making; A Handbook for Statesman, Treaty Editors, and Boundary Commissioners. Wash., 1943; Douglas Jackson W.A. The Russian -Chinese Borderlands: Zone of Peaceful Contacts or Potential Conflict? Princeton, 1962; Tai Sung An. The Sino-Soviet Territorial Dispute. Philadelphia, 1973: Bassin М. Imperialism and the nation state in Friedrich Ratzel's Political Geography // Progress in Human Geography, 1987. 1 I. P. 473-495; Border and Territorial Disputes, 3-rd Ed, L.: Longman Current Affairs, 1992 и др.

4 See, for example: Zhan K ... Savana P. Gso Ekonomika. Domination of the economic space, Moscow: Ad marginem, 1997; Neklessa A. I. Post-modern world in a new coordinate system // East. 1997. N 2; same name. The end of the Great Modern Era, Moscow: Institute of Economic Strategies, 1999; Kochetov E. G. Geoeconomics (Development of the world economic space), Moscow: BEK Publishing House, 1999, et al.

5 See, for example: Venyukov MI. Opyt voennogo obozreniya russkikh granits v Azii [Experience of military review of Russian borders in Asia], Part 1, St. Petersburg, 1877; Semenov-Tyan-Shansky P. P. Znachenie Rossii v kolonizatsionnom dvizhenii evropeiskikh narodov [The significance of Russia in the colonization movement of European peoples]. Izv. RGO. 1892. Vol.XXVIII. pp. 349-369; Semenov-Tyan-Shansky. Moscow: GIZ Publ., 1928: Karkhanin M. V. Lectures on military geography of the USSR and neighboring countries. Issue 1. General overview of the borders of the USSR. Paris. 1931; Pokshishevsky V. V. Settlement of Siberia. Irkutsk, 1951; Armand D. L. Proiskhozhdenie i tipy prirodnykh granits [Origin and types of natural borders]. Izv. VGO. 1955. N 3: Smirnov A.M. Obshchegeograficheskie ponyatii //Theoretical geography. Voprosy geografii [Issues of Geography], Moscow: Mysl', 1971: Murav'ev A.V., Samarkin V. V. Istoricheskaya geografiya epokhi feodalizma [Historical geography of the feudal era], Moscow, 1973; Armand A.D. Teoriya polya i problema otlicheniya geosistem [Field theory and the problem of geosystem isolation]. Voprosy geografii. Sb. 98. M.: Mysl, 1975; Samarkin V. V. Istoricheskaya geografiya Zapadnoy Evropy v Sredniye veka [Historical geography of Western Europe in the Middle Ages]. M.1976; Shuvalov V. E. K ponyatiyu geograficheskoi granitsy [To the concept of geographical borders]. Odessa. 1977. Kyiv. 1977; Hagget P. Geografiya: sintez sovremennykh znaniy [Geography: Synthesis of modern Knowledge]. Moscow: Progress, 1979; Kolchev A. N. Smirnyagin L. V. Economic and geographical significance of the administrative borders of the United States // Questions of economic and political geography of foreign countries. Issue 3. Moscow: MSU-ILA of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1980. pp. 318-336; Geograficheskie granitsy. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1982: Shuvalov V. E. Geograficheskaya granitsa kak faktor rayonoobrazovaniya // Geograficheskie granitsy i lineynye predposylki formirovaniya opornogo karkasa rasseleniya (na primere Kavkazskogo regiona) [Geographical boundaries and linear prerequisites for the formation of the support frame of settlement (on the example of the Caucasus region)]. Politicheskaya geografiya: sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti razvitiya [Political Geography: Current State and Ways of Development], Moscow, 1989; Kagansky V. L. Administrativno-territorialnoe delenie: logika sistemy [Ethics of variability and constancy in relation to the reform of administrative-territorial division]. Series geogr. 1993, N 4: Dsrgachev V. A. Geografiya marginalnoy komplimentarnosti [Geography of marginal complementarity]. Izv. RGO. 1995. Vol. 127. Issue 3. pp. 28-36; on. Free economic zones - the path to an open society: historical and geographical approaches / / Izv. RAS. Geographical series. 1995. N 3. pp. 117-124; Zhitin D. V. Russian Geopolitics: 400 years ago and today / / Izv. RGO. 1994. Vol. 126. Issue. 6. Kolosov V. A., Krindich A.D. Rossiya i byvshie soyuznye respubliki: problemy novogo pogranichya (na primere Rostovskoy oblasti) [Russia and the former Union Republics: problems of the new frontier (on the example of the Rostov region)]. 1994. N 4. pp. 37-49; Rodoman B. B. Territorial areas and networks. Smolensk; Oikumena, 1999; Turovsky R. F. Politicheskaya geografiya [Political geography]. Smolensk: SSU Publishing House, 1999; Hartshorne R. A Survey of the Boundary Problems of Europe // Geographical Aspects of International Relations / Ed. by Ch. Colby. Chicago, 1938; Spykemen N. Frontiers, Security, and International Organisation // Geographical Review. 1942. V. 32; Prescott G. The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries. L.: Hutchington, 1965; Jones St. Boundary Concepts in the Setting of Place and Time // Politics and Geographic Relationship. Towards a New Focus. Prentice Hill, 1971; Shaw D.J.B. Southern Frontiers of Muscovy, 1550- 1700 // Bater J.N. & French R.A. (eds.). Studies in Russian Historical Geography. L., 1983. P. 117-142; Foucher М. L' invention des frontiers. P., 1986; Taylor P.J. Political geography. L., 1989; Bussin М. Russia between Europe and Asia // Slavic Review. 1991. N 50. 1; Tayior P.J. Political geography: world-economy, nation-state and locality, L., 1993; Paasi A. Territories, boundaries and consciousness. The changing geographies of the finish-russian border. Chichester et al., 1998; Kolossov V., O'Loiughin J. New borders for new world orders. Territorialities at the fin-de-siecie / / Geojournal. 1998. V. 44. N 3. et al.

page 60

6 См.: Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, 1980; Fauconnier G. Mental spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Fauconnier G., Sweetser E. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996; Fauconnier G. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

7 See: Burstin D. Americans: National Experience, Moscow: Izd. gruppa: "Progress" - "Litera", 1993; Petrovskaya E. V. Chast sveta, Moscow: Ad marginem, 1995; Mironov B. N. Ukaz. soch.; Turner F. J. The Significance of the Frontier in American History ./ Proceedings of the Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1984. 41. P. 79-112; idem. The Frontier in American History. N.Y., 1920; Webh W.R. The Great Frontier. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964; Taylor G.R. (ed.). The Turner Thesis: Concening the Role of the Frontier in American History. N.Y., 1966; Billington R.A. The American Frontier // Bohunnan P., and Plog K F. (eds.) / Beyond ihe Frontier. N.Y., 1967. P. 3-24; Eccles W.J. The Canadian Frontier. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969; Miller D.H. and Steffen J.O. (eds.). The Frontier. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977, V. 1. 1979, V. 2; America's Frontier Story. A Documentary History of Westward Expansion. Huntington, 1980; Billington R.A. Westward Expansion. A History of the American Frontier. N.Y., 1982; idem. America's Frontier Heritage. Albuquerque, 1991, et al.

See: Dashkevich Ya. R. 8 The Great Border of Ukraine. Etnokontaktnye zony v Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR (geografiya, dinamika, metody izucheniya) [Ethno-contact zones in the European part of the USSR (geography, dynamics, methods of study)]. Moscow: Moskovskiy filial ' Geograficheskogo obshchestva SSSR, 1989, pp. 7-21.

9 See: Tsymbursky V. L. Narody mezhdu tsivilizatsiyami [Peoples between Civilizations]. Russia - The Land beyond the Great Limitrof: civilization and Its Geopolitics, Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2000, pp. 57-89.

10 See, for example, Yushko A. A. On the inter-princely borders in the Moscow River basin in the middle of the 12th-first third of the 13th century. 1987. N 3; Savelyeva I. M. Poletaev A.V. Istoriya i vremya [History and time]. In search of the lost. M.: "Languages of Russian Culture", 1997. pp. 128-135; Ivanov S. A. Perception of the limits of the Empire: from Rome to Byzantium / / Slavs and their neighbors. Issue 8. Imperial Idea in the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, Moscow: Nauka, 1998, pp. 4-12; Obolensky D. Byzantine Commonwealth of Nations. Six Byzantine Portraits. Moscow: Yanus-K, 1998; Petrukhin V. Ya., Rayevsky D. S. Ocherki istorii narodov Rossii v drevnosti i rannem srednevekovie [Essays on the History of the peoples of Russia in Ancient and Early Middle Ages]. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1998.

11 See, for example: Wright, J. K. Geographical Representations in the Era of the Crusades: A Study of the Medieval Tradition in Western Europe. east lit. Nauka Publishing House, 1988; Melnikova E. A. Drevneskandinavskie geograficheskie sochineniya (text, translation, commentary) [Old Norse Geographical Works (text, translation, commentary)]. Image of the world. Geographical representations in medieval Europe. Moscow: Yanus-K, 1998; Pliguzov A. I. Text-centaur about Siberian Samoyeds. Moscow: Newtonville: Archeographic Center, 1993; Mylnikov A. S. Picture of the Slavic world: a view from Eastern Europe: ethnogenetic legends, guesses, proto-hypotheses of the XVI-early XVIII century. St. Petersburg: "Center for Petersburg Oriental Studies", 1996, etc.

12 See, for example: Rogachev S. V. Model of extroversion in the geography of society: colonial heritage in the territorial structure of urban settlement in Africa // Questions of economic and political geography of foreign countries. Issue No. 13. Problemy obshchestvennoi geografii [Problems of Social Geography], Moscow: MSU - ILA, 1993, pp. 175-194. American studies in Siberia. Issue 2. Tomsk, 1997; Zamyatina N. Yu. Siberia and the Wild West: the image of the Territory and its role in public life. 1998. N 6. Pp. 5-20; Grahsky S. The Polish-Soviet Frontier. L., 1943; Treagold W. Russian Expansion in the Light of the Turner on the American Frontier // Agricultural History, 1952. 26. P. 147-152; Lamb A. The Sino-Indian and Sino-Russian borders: some comparisons and contracts // Studies in the social history of China and South-East Asia. Cambridge, 1970. P. 135-152; Wieczynski J.L. The Russian Frontier. The impact of borderlands upon the course of early Russian history. Charlottsville: Univ. Press of Virginia, 1976, etc.

13 See: Zamyatina N. Yu. Edict op.

14 In this case, artistic images associated with crossing or stopping at the border are also important -see, for example: Blok A. A. Wirballen / / Collected works in 8 vols. Vol. 3. M.-L.: Khud. lit., 1960. pp. 404-406; Rein E. Night on the Chinese border / / Banner. 1994. N 4. pp. 74-75.

15 See for example: Landa R. G. Interaction of civilizations on the Iberian Peninsula in the VIII-XVII centuries (ethnic and religious aspects) // East (Oriens). 1997. N 1. pp. 16-28; also: Watt W. M., Kakia P. Muslim Spain, Moscow: Chief Editor. east lit. Nauka Publishing House, 1976.

16 См.: Livingstone D.N., Harrison R.T. The Frontier: metaphor, myth and model // Professional Geographer, 1980. 32. P. 127-132.

Zamyatina N. Yu. 17 Edict. op.; Barrett Thomas M. Lines of Uncertainty: the North Caucasian "Frontier" of Russia / / American Russian Studies. Milestones of historiography. The Imperial period. Samara: Samara State University, 2000, pp. 163-195.

page 61

18 См., например: Hennessy A. The Frontier in Latin American History. L.: Edvard Arnold, 1978; Perry T.M. Australian's First Frontier. L.: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

19 See also: Zamyatin D. N. Historical and geographical aspects of regional policy and public administration in Russia // Regional studies. 1999. N 1. pp. 163-173.

20 See, for example, the description of the exchange of tablets on the Russian-Chinese border in the middle of the XIX century: Kropotkin P. A. Diaries of different years. Russia", 1992. pp. 243-244. 21 See, for example: Gurevich B. P., Murashova G. F., Shaumyan T. L. China: Territorial Claims, Moscow, 1984.

22 See: F. Braudel. What is France? Book One: Prostranstvo i istoriya [Space and History]. Sabashnikov, 1994, pp. 271-289.

23 See, for example: Solzhenitsyn A. I. How do we equip Russia? Moscow, 1990; Sitnyansky G. Natural borders: how to be a new Russia / / Social Sciences and Modernity. 1994. N 6. pp. 112-119.

24 See, for example: Bolkhovitinov N. N. Alaskan scandal (1867-1868) / / Voprosy istorii. 1989. N 4. Pp. 37-54; onk. Russian-American relations and the sale of Alaska. 1834-1867. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Gruzinski S. 25 Colonization and Pattern Warfare in colonial and modern Mexico // International Journal of Social Sciences. America: 1492-1992. May 1993. N 1. pp. 65-85.

26 See: Aveni E. Empires of Time. Calendars, hours and Cultures, Moscow: "Sofia", 1998, pp. 303-331. See: Belov E. A. Russia and China at the beginning of the XX century. Russo-Chinese Contradictions in 1911-1915, Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. Russia and Mongolia (1911-1919). Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999.

Reisner L. 28 Afghanistan. Moscow - L., 1925. p. 87.

29 Posthumous papers of M. D. Skobelev. III. Turkestan and English India (1876) / / Historical Bulletin, 1882, No. 11, p. 285.

30 Ibid., p. 293.

Severtsov N. A. 31 Notes on the actual border of Russian and Khiva possessions in the Syrdarya region] / / Izv. Turkestan Department of the IRGO. Vol. XI. Issue 1. Tashkent, 1915. P. XV.

32 Ibid., p. XVI.

33 Report of Major General Borch to the General Staff of December 22, 1881 on the upcoming tasks for the final annexation of Central Asia to Russia in connection with the annexation of the Akhal-Teka oasis and the principles of population management // Russia and Turkmenistan. To the entry of Turkmenistan into Russia. I. Ashkhabad, 1946. p. 194.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., pp. 194-195.

36 Report of General Kuropatkin to the General Staff of 15.1.1887 / / Russia and Turkmenistan ... p. 302.

37 Ibid., pp. 302-303.

38 Ibid., pp. 300-301.

39 Ibid., p. 301.

40 Captain Ridgway's New Afghan Border / / Collection of geographical, topographical and statistical materials on Asia. Issue XXIX, St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 100-101.

41 Ibid., p. 98.

42 Ibid., pp. 98-99.

43 See: Tsymbursky V. L. Ostrov Rossiya (perspektivy rossiiskoi geopolitiki) [Island of Russia (prospects of Russian Geopolitics)]. 1993. N5.

44 Captain Ridgway's New Afghan Border... p. 94.

.Charykov N. V. The peaceful conquest of Merv (From the memoirs of the campaign of General A. V. Komarov in 1885) / / Historical Bulletin. 1914. N 11. P. 518.

46 Ibid.

47 See: Lurie S., Kazaryan L. Decree. op.

48 Note of Colonel of the General Staff Kuropatkin dated 20.1.1879 to the Minister of War Milyutin//Russia and Turkmenistan ... p. 117.

49 Merv oasis and the roads leading to it (Comp. Lieutenant Alikhanov). St. Petersburg, 1883, pp. 30-32.

50 Ibid.

51 Copy from the letter of the temporary commander of the troops in the Trans-Caspian military department located, Adjutant General Skobelev to the envoy in Tehran from Chekishlir dated May 13, 1880 N 2 / / Russia and Turkmenistan ... p. 140.

Lessar P. M. 52 Pozdka v Seraks [A trip to Serax] / SPb., 1882 / p. 11.

page 62

53 Ibid., p. 14.

54 Ibid., p. 16.

55 Ibid., pp. 16-17.

Charykov N. V. 56 Decree. op. s. 490-491.

Tikhomirov M. N. 57 The accession of Merv to Russia. Moscow, 1960. pp. 146, 217, and 94.

Rishtia Send Kasem. 58 Afghanistan in the XIX century, Moscow, 1958, p. 342.

59 Ibid., p. 370.

Tikhomirov M. N. 60 Edict. op. P. 93.

61 Ibid., p. 138.

62 Ibid., p. 201.

63 Ibid., p. 178.

64 Ibid., p. 177.

Oleynikov O. V. 65 Socio-natural history of Russia. XIX century. (Prehistory of the second socio - ecological crisis) // Genetic codes of civilizations / Ed. by E. S. Kulpin, Moscow, 1995, p. 36.

Meshcheryakov A. N. 66 Early history of the Japanese archipelago as a socio-natural and informational process//Genetic codes of civilizations ... pp. 174-178.

Leonov Yu. P. 67 Color space of horizontal retinal cells / / Psychological Journal. 1995. Vol. 16. N 2. P. 138.

68 Ibid.

Nikolaev P. P., Nikolaev D. P. 69 Models of constant visual perception. III. Spectral and perceptual invariants in visual processing procedures // Sensory Systems, vol. 11, 1997, issue no. 2. p. 187.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid., p. 199.

Permanent link to this publication: